D&D 5E The classes of 5e (now with 90% less speculation)

[Glade Riven]

I like the common/uncommon/rare division. If you can fit everything about a class into a two-page spread, it's not that bad as far as size. Heck, if they can reduce a 20 level class to a single page, it's even better. Modules would allow for more variety, both in the PHB and splats.

Speculation on the list:

Assassin [1e subclass, kinda 3e (prestige class)] - rare
Barbarian [3e] - Uncommon
Bard [1e, 2e, 3e] - Uncommon or rare
Cleric [0e, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, Basic] - Common, out of tradition
Druid [1e subclass, 2e, 3e, Basic] - Uncommon
Dwarf [Basic] - Race, not a class. Paragon modules may exist
Elf [Basic] - Race, not a class. Paragon modules may exist
Fighter [1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, Basic] - Common
Fighting-Man [0e] - Rolled into Fighter
Halfling [Basic] - Race, not a class. Paragon modules may exist
Illusionist [1e subclass, 2e subclass, 3e subclass] - Rolled into a wizard build, or split between wizard and sorcerer builds.
Mage [2e subclass] - Rolled into another spellcasting class
Magic-User [0e, 1e, Basic] - Covered by other spellcasting classes
Monk [1e, 3e] - Uncommon or Rare
Mystic [Basic] - Dunno. Not familiar with this edition.
Paladin [1e subclass, 2e, 3e, 4e] - Common or Uncommon
Priest [2e class group] - Uncommon? Priests may either rolled into the cleric, or as something kinda like the Avenger or Pathfinder Inquisitor.
Ranger [1e, 2e, 3e, 4e] - Common or Uncommon
Rogue [2e class group, 3e, 4e] - Common
Sorcerer [3e] - Rare
Specialist wizard other than Illusionist [2e subclass, 3e subclass] - Rolled into Wizard builds
Thief [1e, 2e, Basic] - Rolled into Rogue
Warlock [4e] - Rare
Warlord [4e] - Uncommon or Rare
Warrior [2e class group, kinda 3e as an NPC class...] - Rolled into Fighter
Wizard [2e class group, 3e, 4e] - Common

 

[Nivenus]

My "concern" is that they take this all too deeply to a modular approach, ie:

Fighter: Base Class
Defender: Fighter base with Tactical Control kit added
Warlord: Fighter base with Leader kit added
Knight: Fighter base with Noble kit added
Artilleryman: Fighter base with Archer kit added

Skirmisher: Base Class
Thief: Skirmisher base with Rogue kit
Ranger: Skirmisher base with Archer or Primal Hunter kit added
Barbarian: Skirmisher base with Slayer kit added.

Wizard: base class

Priest: base class

Paladin: Fighter/Priest multiclass.

etc.

That's something I'd actually be cool with (and have sort of advocated) but it doesn't sound to me like that's what they're doing. They're already talking about the wizard, assassin, and warlock as distinctive classes, so I doubt that it's going to be as much "mix, plug, and play" as some of us speculated.

 

[Oni]

Kind of have to add something new every new edition right? I'm thinking psion is finally going to get the nod and be bumped up to the first players handbook. Though it's never been a PHB class, so to speak, psionics has a long history with the game, and in an edition that's all about the history of the game I think it could happen. Perhaps it might be wishful thinking, but it was mentioned as one that had been difficult to work with.

 

[Nivenus]

Kind of have to add something new every new edition right? I'm thinking psion is finally going to get the nod and be bumped up to the first players handbook. Though it's never been a PHB class, so to speak, psionics has a long history with the game, and in an edition that's all about the history of the game I think it could happen. Perhaps it might be wishful thinking, but it was mentioned as one that had been difficult to work with.

Although I've never used psionics, I'd be cool with this. You're absolutely right that it has a long tradition with the game, dating back to the first Unearthed Arcana.

 

[steeldragons]

Although I've never used psionics, I'd be cool with this. You're absolutely right that it has a long tradition with the game, dating back to the first Unearthed Arcana.

Dating back to the 1e Players' Handbook, actually...Appendix I: Psionics, p. 110.

 

[rounser]

Warlord in the core game again, eh?

Well that saves some time. Goodbye 5E, you are already too reminiscent of 4E.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Do they mean all classes from each edition's PHB, which would be what has been listed so far?

Or, do they mean, all the classes that have been in each edition's first PHB, which would be a far more limited list (those that have been in each PHB)- Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User/Wizard, Thief/Rogue, Paladin, Ranger?

And, from that list, you can have different options/builds/modules?

 

[mkill]

I like the common/uncommon/rare division.

Meh. It's superfluous. Either I have an Assassin at the table, in which case I need to care about the class as DM. Or I don't, in which case the class is completely irrelevant. And whether a class is common or uncommon for NPCs depends on the game world, the region and the campaign. If NPCs use PC classes at all. No need to write it into the PHB.

If this makes it into the final draft, it's going to be the power sources of 5E - no in-game effect, but tons of heated discussion about it on the interwebs.

 

[TerraDave]

Dating back to the 1e Players' Handbook, actually...Appendix I: Psionics, p. 110.

And not to repeat this in every thread...but psion and wild talents were mentioned. We will see them. (unless they can't get them right in time).

I don't think they will have racial classes....but maybe builds or suggestions or these neo kits they seem to be referring to.

 

[Nivenus]

Warlord in the core game again, eh?

Well that saves some time. Goodbye 5E, you are already too reminiscent of 4E.

Really, given all the things they're adding back in from 3e and earlier editions, this just seems like pointless grognard-ing to me.

I have issues of my own with the warlord class (as I've indicated in the thread specifically about them) but I won't begrudge their existence for other players to use. I don't see why it's "your way or the highway."

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The rarity system is almost certainly going to be organized by how controversial the class is.

Common
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

Uncommon
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Paladin
Ranger
Sorcerer

Rare
Assassin
Monk
Psion
Warlock
Warlord


Warlord might be uncommon, due to popularity and general thematic appropriateness. I think monk will be rare because it's a little out of place in a traditional fantasy setting.

Priest may be a subclass of Cleric. If not, it's probably uncommon.

 

[rounser]

Really, given all the things they're adding back in from 3e and earlier editions, this just seems like pointless grognard-ing to me.

I have issues of my own with the warlord class (as I've indicated in the thread specifically about them) but I won't begrudge their existence for other players to use. I don't see why it's "your way or the highway."

It's as much what you leave out as what you put in. I'm not barracking for a team here, "Team Grognard" as you might put it - adding oldschool classes means nothing if they include a core class that has no archetype, a misnomer of a name, and violates suspension of disbelief. I have no desire to build or run worlds with that noisome nothing-class in it, nor to play as part of parties featuring it. It's going to be ubiquitous. The easiest thing to do rather than fight that and ignore the thing (which is going to pop up everywhere) is to drop the entire edition. WOTC's dealbreaker is "must include warlord in 5E core" and they will not budge, mine is the opposite, so I'm out.

 

[Nivenus]

It's as much what you leave out as what you put in. I'm not barracking for a team here, "Team Grognard" as you might put it - adding oldschool classes means nothing if they include a core class that has no archetype, a misnomer of a name, and violates suspension of disbelief. It's going to be ubiquitous. The easiest thing to do rather than fight that and ignore the thing (which is going to pop up everywhere) is to drop the entire edition. WOTC's dealbreaker is "must include warlord in 5E core" and they will not budge, mine is the opposite, so I'm out.

I honestly don't see how warlord is any less iconic than cleric, to be honest. Divine spellcasters are absent in most fantasy settings outside of D&D, but battle commanders are a pretty common fantasy staple.

Mind you, I like clerics a lot and I think divine spellcasting was one of D&D's great innovations. But I don't think you can make the argument that warlords are a less iconic archetype than many of the classes already present in 3e and earlier editions.

 

[Stoat]

Warlord in the core game again, eh?

Well that saves some time. Goodbye 5E, you are already too reminiscent of 4E.

Can I make a respectful suggestion?

If you really feel this way, if you're really out because "warlord" is in the 5E PHB, stop griping about it and let the rest of us have our fun.

 

[Raith5]

It's as much what you leave out as what you put in. I'm not barracking for a team here, "Team Grognard" as you might put it - adding oldschool classes means nothing if they include a core class that has no archetype, a misnomer of a name, and violates suspension of disbelief. I have no desire to build or run worlds with that noisome nothing-class in it, nor to play as part of parties featuring it. It's going to be ubiquitous. The easiest thing to do rather than fight that and ignore the thing (which is going to pop up everywhere) is to drop the entire edition. WOTC's dealbreaker is "must include warlord in 5E core" and they will not budge, mine is the opposite, so I'm out.

Then don't play them, or use them at your table. Problem solved

 

[rounser]

I honestly don't see how warlord is any less iconic than cleric, to be honest. Divine spellcasters are absent in most fantasy settings outside of D&D, but battle commanders are a pretty common fantasy staple.

Mind you, I like clerics a lot and I think divine spellcasting was one of D&D's great innovations. But I don't think you can make the argument that warlords are a less iconic archetype than many of the classes already present in 3e and earlier editions.

I'll direct you to google for my thoughts on the warlord, if you're really interested. I shouldn't be surprised at it's return - apparently it's a Mearls invention based on his Hunter class.

Anyway, this is an early indicator of 5E's design style. If I don't like that, probably not going to like what else this design team comes up with.

The real headscratcher for me is that getting the implied setting right isn't that hard. Kenzer and Paizo can do it - it really is an unforced error to include stuff like this.

 

[Nivenus]

The real headscratcher for me is that getting the implied setting right isn't that hard. Kenzer and Paizo can do it - it really is an unforced error to include stuff like this.

It's only an error if you don't like it. Plenty of people like it. Stop stating your opinion as objective fact.

 

[Oni]

Seems a hasty decision to me without having seen the rules and all, especially when there's going to be an open beta test.

Really though this is derailing an interesting thread, I don't see any reason to to keep dragging someone back in who isn't interested in the new edition anyway. If he wants to be out, let him be out.

 

[Remathilis]

Seems a hasty decision to me without having seen the rules and all, especially when there's going to be an open beta test.

You think this is bad, ask him what his opinions of teleporting elves and dragonboobs are.

Best to ignore him.

 

[rounser]

You think this is bad, ask him what his opinions of teleporting elves and dragonboobs are.

Best to ignore him.

Your 4E edition failed. Why don't we ignore it? Dragonborn, blink elves and warlords might have something to do with that.

Mod Note: Edition Warring - don't do it. Really. We've had enough. ~Umbran